Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (486277)	5/8/2012 4:12:54 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

I think of racism as the idea that people can be divided into breeds and that some breeds are in some fuzzy sense superior to other breeds. Science has taught us that any concept of human breeds is a figment of our imaginations as all humans genes are remarkable similar. Much less variation than you see in, say, apes. What is now called racism is actually an intolerance of one or more cultures. Everyone share this to a lesser or greater extent.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (486277)	5/8/2012 5:18:23 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	6 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

oh, I see, it was meant to be humor. arrr arrr arrr. (that was my Mork laughing imitation). Silly me for not getting it. PS: Just to be pedantic, how does 90% Negro vote for Barack demonstrate racism? <Here's my point, if someone votes for (or against) a politician based simply on that politician's race, that is clearly racist. > Careful, or you might get into proving that 90% white people at Harvard proves Harvard's racism. Or 90% white people in the engineering profession proves racism. Just buy the Official Mug. It would look great at your in-laws and they could have a laugh too. To return the pedantic volley: I said: "Here's my point, if someone votes for (or against) a politician based simply on that politician's race, that is clearly racist." I didn't say 90% of blacks blah blah blah. In fact, blacks as a voting block generally vote democrat anyway. However, Barack Obama won because of a significant portion of the white population voting for him. Thus proving that racism from whites is far less than what it would appear if you read the mainstream media. If you want to compare apples to apples, look at the breakdown on the percentages of blacks who voted for Obama vs Hillary Clinton.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (486277)	5/8/2012 5:20:09 PM
From: longnshort	4 Recommendations Respond to of 793955

Mob on the Quad 2:22 PM, May 8, 2012 • By Late last night, in a shameful example of editorial cowardice, the Chronicle of Higher Education fired Naomi Schaefer Riley. Naomi is a good friend of mine, a sometimes contributor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD, and a fine writer. And the story of what happened to her is highly instructive. Naomi joined the Chronicle’s “Brainstorm Blog” a little over a year ago. It was a good hire—she’s written two insightful books on academia, God on the Quad and The Faculty Lounges, along with dozens of articles on the subject. Her postings were smart and entertaining. (For a couple of samples, click over to “If this is art, your middle-school daughter is Picasso” and “No sex for you.”) Last week she wrote about the world of “Black Studies” in a post titled “The most persuasive case for getting rid of Black Studies? Read the dissertations.” You should read the whole thing, because it’s only 520 words, but here’s the gist of Naomi’s argument: I just got around to reading The Chronicle’s recent piece on the young guns of black studies. If ever there were a case for eliminating the discipline, the sidebar explaining some of the dissertations being offered by the best and the brightest of black-studies graduate students has made it. What a collection of left-wing victimization claptrap. The best that can be said of these topics is that they’re so irrelevant no one will ever look at them. That’s what I would say about Ruth Hayes’ dissertation, “‘So I Could Be Easeful’: Black Women’s Authoritative Knowledge on Childbirth.” It began because she “noticed that nonwhite women’s experiences were largely absent from natural-birth literature, which led me to look into historical black midwifery.” How could we overlook the nonwhite experience in “natural birth literature,” whatever the heck that is? It’s scandalous and clearly a sign that racism is alive and well in America, not to mention academia. Naomi then went on to dissect two other incredibly silly “Black Studies” dissertations. One of these was written by TaSha B. Levy. Here’s how the Chronicle itself—not Naomi—described Levy’s work: Ms. Levy is interested in examining the long tradition of black Republicanism, especially the rightward ideological shift it took in the 1980s after the election of Ronald Reagan. Ms. Levy’s dissertation argues that conservatives like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, John McWhorter, and others have “played one of the most-significant roles in the assault on the civil-rights legacy that benefited them.” Chronicle readers were outraged. Not that a graduate student was earning a doctorate by claiming that Sowell, Thomas, and McWhorter are threats to civil rights. Oh, no. They were outraged because Naomi would dare poke fun at such insanity. Because, you know, that’s racist. Eight days and 497 comments later, the Chronicle’s Liz McMillen fired Naomi. Here’s how she explained her decision: [S]everal thousand of you spoke out in outrage and disappointment that The Chronicle had published an article that did not conform to the journalistic standards and civil tone that you expect from us. We’ve heard you, and we have taken to heart what you said. We now agree that Ms. Riley’s blog posting did not meet The Chronicle’s basic editorial standards for reporting and fairness in opinion articles. . . . [M]y Editor’s Note last week inviting you to debate the posting also seemed to elevate it to the level of informed opinion, which it was not. I also realize that, as the controversy unfolded last week, our response on Twitter did not accurately convey The Chronicle’s message. weeklystandard.com